Home > Haryana > Degree > Hisar > Dayanand College

• Contact
• Courses
• Stuff

Dayanand College, Hisar, Haryana

Contact

Dayanand College, Hisar, Haryana

Hisar (District Hisar)
Haryana, India

Pin Code : 125001


Dayanand College, Hisar Haryana is a recognised institute / college. Dayanand College, Hisar Haryana is also known as DN College Hisar.
Principal of Dayanand College, Hisar Haryana is Dr. Rajesh K. Tomar (Mobile 094166-70880).

Dayanand College is situated in Hisar of Haryana state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Hisar comes under Hisar Tehsil, Hisar District.

Residence Phone No(s) of concerned peron(s) of Dayanand College, Hisar Haryana is (are) : 01662-239399.

Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Dayanand College, Hisar Haryana are 9416670880.

email ID(s) is

Chairman : Justice R.N. Mittal (Phone 011-23515951).
General Secretary : Sh.R.S. Sharma (Phone 011-23515951).

Contact Details of Dayanand College, Hisar Haryana are : 01662-233136, 270989, 329704(O)

---

Other colleges of DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi

Courses

Dayanand College, Hisar Haryana runs course(s) in Arts, Commerce, Science stream(s).


Approval details: Dayanand College is affiliated with Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (Haryana)

Stuff

Images / newspaper cuttings related to Dayanand College

Media coverage of Dayanand College, Hisar Haryana, Haryana

ANIL BHATIYA Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9083 OF 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 07 ,2011

Anil Bhatiya .....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:
Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. B.M.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr. R. S. Cheema, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner, an employee of Daya Nand College, Hisar, has approached this Court with a grievance relating to his dismissal
and would pray for remitting the case back to respondent No.2,
Higher Education Commissioner, for deciding the same in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order, dealing with the grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation dated
14.11.2005, Annexure P-6. In this representation, the petitioner has mainly agitated his challenge about the competent Managing Committee.

The petitioner had joined the services in Daya Nand College, Hisar, in the year 1973. The college is receiving 90% grantin-
aid from the State of Haryana and is affiliated to Kurukshetra
University. The petitioner has mainly questioned the competency of the Managing Committee, which has taken action against him, which, according to him, is not his appointing/punishing authority under the Haryana Affiliated College (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (for short, “the Act”).

This Act came into force on 17.4.1979 and according to the petitioner the governing body of the College is his appointing/punishing authority. As per the petitioner, D.A.V. College Managing Committee (respondent No.5) would not have any jurisdiction, power and authority to either transfer him to D.A.V.College, Pehowa (respondent No.4) nor could it take any action against him.

As can be noticed, the petitioner was transferred to D.A.V. College, Pehowa, in the year 1987. The petitioner had challenged the same by filing a civil suit, where the operation of transfer order was stayed. Respondents had filed appeal against this order, which was allowed on 12.8.1988. The petitioner then had unsuccessfully approached this Court by filing civil revision and thereafter had withdrawn the civil suit to file an application before Director, Higher Education, who granted stay against the transfer order. The management of the College challenged the order granting stay before this Court through Civil Writ Petition No.10209 of 1988, when the order passed by the Director, Higher Education, was stayed on
19.11.1988. The application filed by the petitioner, seeking vacation of the stay passed by this Court was dismissed on 10.8.1989. Still, the petitioner did not join the service at his place of transfer i.e. D.A.V.College, Pehowa. The petitioner accordingly was issued a charge sheet. Due enquiry was held and thereafter the Managing Committee of D.A.V.College, Pehowa, sought approval from Director, Higher Education for imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner then had filed an application before Director, Higher Education, pleading that the case was pending before the High Court and accordingly the proceedings for grant of approval be stayed, which was done. The High Court finally passed the judgment on 22.1.2004, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-Management and then the order of dismissal has followed.

As per the respondent-Management, the High Court, while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.10209 of 1988, has gone into the
issue as to the competency of the appointing/punishing authority and has thereafter allowed the writ petition of the management. It is observed that D.A.V.College Managing committee, New Delhi can transfer an employee from one College to another and it is the Committee for all the Colleges.

The petitioner had filed a review petition against this order, which was also dismissed on 6.1.2004.

It appears that thereafter the charge sheet issued to the petitioner has been finalised. His reply was not found satisfactory.

After holding proper enquiry by associating the petitioner, a proposal to remove him from service was sent to the Director, Higher Education, for approval. The necessary approval was granted. The representation filed before the Commissioner and Secretary, Education was dismissed and now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

By way of preliminary objection, the respondents would point out that any order passed in the present writ petition would mean over-ruling the judgment passed by this Court while dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.10209 of 1988, decided on 23.1.2004 as the challenge is the same, which has been negated. As per the respondents, the petitioner, if aggrieved, could have challenged this order in Civil Writ Petition No.10209 of 1988 by filing S.L.P. and once this judgment has acquired finality, it has to be taken that the respondent-Managing Committee had a right to transfer the petitioner and he, by not joining the place of transfer, had remained absent from duty, for which he could be charge sheeted and punished.

Initially, the petitioner was represented by Dr.B.M.Singh, Advocate. Today a request is made for adjourning the case on the ground that Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate, has been engaged to argue the case. The request was declined and Mr.Sanjay Majithia, has appeared but again to request for an adjournment, which was not agreed to. On his request, the case is passed over for him to make submissions. At the time of arguments, it is noticed that Dr.B.M.Singh is assisting the senior counsel. Senior counsel is accordingly confronted with this fact and he submits that there may be a communication gap and intention was not to convey that the earlier counsel has been superseded. The adjournment, as sought, is objected by the respondents on the ground that the case is pending
for motion hearing for 3 years.

The main grouse, however, now made is only that the Managing Committee at Delhi is not competent appointing authority of the petitioner. Since this very issue directly arose in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner and has been negated, it will have to be seen if this would require reconsideration in any manner.

Civil Writ Petition No.10209 of 1988 has been filed by D.A.V. College Managing Committee, New Delhi. As per the petitioner, this Committee was not competent to take action against him or to transfer him as it was not his appointing or punishing authority in terms of the Act. A perusal of order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.10209 of 1988 would show that the respondents were restrained from transferring the petitioner by civil court, when he had filed the civil suit. Appeal against this order was allowed and interim order was vacated. The petitioner had then challenged this order by filing Civil Revision before this Court, where he remained unsuccessful and had then filed a representation/appeal under the Act against his transfer order. The petitioner had then withdrawn the civil suit.

It is seen that stand of the petitioner was precisely the same as is now reflected in the writ petition. As per the petitioner, respondent No.2 had no connection with the management of the College, where he was serving and as such, he could be transferred only by the governing body/the Managing Committee of Daya Nand College, Hisar and not by the Managing Committee at Delhi.

Another fact of significance, which is noticed in the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.10209 of 1988 is that the petitioner himself had earlier filed CWP No.17306 of 1995 against the D.A.V.College Management, New Delhi for quashing the joint seniority list of teaching staff as on 31.12.1992. This Court had dismissed the petition with observation that it is always better for proper management and administration to have a common seniority list for employees working in different institutions under the same Management.

The submission in regard to definition of the `Managing Committee' was clearly raised and dealt with by this Court while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.10209 of 1988. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:-

As is clear from the statement of Objects and Reasons (Annexure P/B) of the amendment for making the said substitution, the earlier definition of “Managing Committee” was creating administrative and legal difficulties for bodies managing more than one college in the State, and it was in order to enable such managing bodies to overcome these difficulties, that it was felt necessary to make the said amendment in the definition of “Managing Committee”. And, with the substitution of the old definition of the managing committee with the said new definition, it is the new definition which would now be applicable for all the cases which come up for consideration. That being so, the said contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 loses all its merit because as per the definition of managing committee, there can be a common managing committee also for managing the affairs of even more than colleges. In fact, respondent No.2 had himself also earlier made a representation dated 5.7.1977 (Annexure PE) (attached with the replication) for his transfer from Daya Nand
College, Hissar to DAV College, Chandigarh, to the DAV Managing Committee i.e. Petitioner No.1. This fact also shows that there had, in fact, never been any doubt in the mind of respondent No.2 himself also that petitioner No.1 who is the Principal managing committee of all the DAV institutions in the State is the only competent authority to effect transfer of its employees from one college to another.

Rather, the Division Bench had made very unpalatable observations against the conduct of the petitioner and had termed his conduct as `absolutely unbecoming'. The Court found that despite no stay against the order of his transfer, the petitioner did not join duty at Pehowa and had not done so till the date of order in Civil Writ Petition No.10209 of 1988. It was noticed that the petitioner had remained absent from duty for 16 years. For this reason, the petitioner was not held entitled to any relief, even on this ground alone.

It is noticed that the petitioner is advancing this stand by way of convenience. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner himself had sent an application for being transferred to D.A.V.College, Chandigarh. A copy of this application dated 12.5.1975 is annexed with the reply. The petitioner had even gone to the extent of submitting that in case his request for transfer did not materialize, then he was submitting his resignation and the same should be treated as one month's notice. Later, the petitioner had submitted an application, seeking permission for audience with President, D.A.V. College Managing Committee, New Delhi. In this back ground, his submission that D.A.V. College Managing Committee, New Delhi, has no jurisdiction is being advanced as a stand of convenience and nothing else.

Since this was the only submission made to challenge the termination order, which has already been dealt with and decided by a Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any reason to reconsider or re-decide the issue once again. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(RANJIT SINGH )
JUDGE

---

Summary: Dayanand College, Hisar Haryana website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.